If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Fantastic opportunity for the public to see if their MP is the type who respects the people's wishes or tries to go against them.

At last, the chance for the MP's to put the matter to bed once and for all and ensure that our leaving is done on our terms, without pandering to the wet liberal left.

No need for the pejorative Brighton (IMO), there are those on the left who fully support Brexit and those on the right who don't. However, given that one fundamental aspect of Brexit was the the sovereignty of parliament, this is surely a positive thing - a sign that we still have a functioning democracy and courts who are not merely corporate or government puppets. I believe it is only right parliament discusses this in detail.

Can anyone explain what hard and soft brexit means please? As a guy studying physics my only real concern is funding decreasing for experiments but most of the other stuff has gone completely over my head.

Can anyone explain what hard and soft brexit means please? As a guy studying physics my only real concern is funding decreasing for experiments but most of the other stuff has gone completely over my head.

The soft option is imo essential for our financial stability, otherwise the tariffs will kick in hard. Also think a low pound was a miserly fiscal return for Brexit, leaving everything else to one side the financial case for which was 90 % fantasy. £ on the up following court case.

The soft option is imo essential for our financial stability, otherwise the tariffs will kick in hard. Also think a low pound was a miserly fiscal return for Brexit, leaving everything else to one side the financial case for which was 90 % fantasy. £ on the up following court case.

So you would also go against the wish of the majority?

The harder the better in my view.

The EU had their chance to treat us fairly and with respect.

Tariffs would hurt them as much as us. Nothing other than tit for tat childish behaviour.

Free trade deal and control of our borders is the best option. It's the EU that is against that, not us.

The problem was that both sides were incredibly uninformed and imo very few people really understood the implications of the massive choice before them. Ironically, part of that was down to the poor quality of UK based politicians whom Brexiteers are so keen to return power to. In or out completely ignored the fact that there are degrees of in or out depending on the way the deal is carved. Someone forget to mention that bit.....

Financially, I voted to stay in for reasons of self interest - I think you'll find self interest a motivating factor in most voting. Places like Wales and Cornwall which received massive EU subsidy inexplicably chose to ignore that fact and poorer rural areas will be hit hard, but I respect their choice. I find British bureaucrats and indeed governance just as incompetent as the European variety, so voting purely on medium term economic grounds kind of made sense to an old cynic like me.

We will of course remain co-signatories to European Human Rights legislation (which we drafted) in the event of Brexit, we will remain subject to rulings of the court in Strasbourg, and the vast majority of immigrants will continue to come from outside the EU, meaning that the two issues which seemed to upset people the most will continue exactly as they did pre Brexit.

Nicola Sturgeon has played a very clever hand in all of this. I have no problem whatsoever with the break up of the UK, good luck to Scotland but the fact is the existence of the UK is subsidised by English tax payers. There is a very strong argument that we on this side of the border would be better off without other parts of the UK. The UK is in any case a relatively recent historical innovation. It is another irony that Engish people who are pro Brexit may ignore the fact that Brexit itself arguably provides the same justification for Scotland to leave us. Like I say though, that could work out OK......

Yet another irony is that an English parliament could get a hard Brexit vote through. That wont happen at Westminster if the Supreme Court rubber stamps the High Court decision. Never mind UKIP, what Brexiteers really needed was an EIP and a referendum on the establishment of an English parliament. After that would have been the time for Brexit, but UKIP made the mistake of assuming that England and the UK were indivisible concepts. For many people on both sides of the argument and border, they are not.

In my view the Courts must remain above political intervention, unlike in the USA. It is not the fault of the Court that the legal ramifications of Brexit (never mind the financial ones) were insufficiently articulated pre referendum. Which is where I came in.

EDIT: after all that I forgot to answer the question! Choosing to abide by the court's ruling isn't going against anyones wishes, because the court isn't ruling on Brexit per se. It's simply saying that the terms of Brexit - ie the thing everyone forgot to mention beforehand - must be put before parliament.